Darwin's Dystopia : Darwinism and Hitler's Eugenics Program

tothesource.org ^ | May 8, 2008 | Dr. Benjamin Wiker

[atlaw]

Very persuasive. All that red. And the growing font sizes following the strong ALL CAPS lead with a nice foreshadowing use of bold. You came very close to convincing me.

But unfortunately, without any exclamation points, your argument ultimately falls flat.

[RobbyS]

Darwin however, gave cover to practices generally condemned by Victorian societies as “uncivlized.” He had a totally wrong notion of inherited charactristics, on which the Eugenecists —and the Nazis—used uncritically. Eugenics is, ironically, quite anti-evolutionary. Research with viruses etac. show that darwinism processes are more efficient that process directed by humans. Eugenics is, in fact, more line line with socialist thinking, which is hostile to economic liberalism.

[allmendream]

Rather those who wished to carry out uncivilized behavior sought cover under the rubric of “Science” and the theory of Evolution through natural selection; just as they also sought cover under the auspices of “Religion” (Hitler directly said he was “avenging my savior's blood upon the cross”).

Darwin had a completely correct notion of inherited characteristics, in that they are passed down as a complete and undiluted in units of heredity.

Selective breeding is more efficient than natural selection to derive the characters you wish (rather than those favored by nature). If we used natural selection to make the best rabbit digging dog we might well end up with a dachshund; but it wouldn't be as efficient as selective breeding.

Yes, Eugenics is well in line with Socialist thinking. They wish to circumvent natural selection based upon human desire and supplant it with government control. Socialism at its finest, no doubt.

[allmendream]

Hitler was most certainly not an atheist, unless he was in the deepest darkest part of his heart. The Nazi's were decidedly anti atheist and cracked a few skulls to prove the point. As a movement the Nazi party was anti-Atheist and publicly “Christian” as they (mis)understood the term.

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out”. Adolf Hitler

“For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life”. Adolf Hitler

[RobbyS]

Seelctove breeding is preferred if one thinks of a dog as a tool.

[allmendream]

Of course a dog is a tool.

We have hunting dogs, tracking dogs, pointing dogs, digging dogs, guarding dogs, and companionship dogs. All selectively breed for our use and enjoyment.

Myself I like my “diving into cold water to retrieve a downed duck” dog, although i usually only use him to fetch tennis balls and to be my best buddy.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Darwin had a completely correct notion of inherited characteristics

Darwin made no distinction between germinal and somatic variations. Even Darwinians--at least the ones who aren't totally blind to Darwin's faults--have admitted so.

[allmendream]

What difference do you think Somatic mutations make on evolution? They make no difference. You understand very little of the theory if you think somatic mutations are involved in evolution. Only germ line mutations have an effect on succeeding generations.

Please explain to me how you think this was a flaw in Darwin’s notion of inherited characteristics that he didn’t get into somatic mutations which are NOT inherited characteristics.

[atlaw]

Darwin also failed to posit the double helix. The man was obviously a hopeless idiot.

ps — you might find this site and its accompanying links educational: http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/evolutio.htm

[RobbyS]

In much of the world, dogs are scavangers. When Gutenberg was looking for some material to apply ink to his type, he hit on dog skin. The streets of Mainz were full of these mangy animals. Their skin has no pores. The same feature made dog skin a popular material for gloves. Even today Muslims do no share our sentimental regard for pooches. The problem arises when one thinks of human beings as tools. The eugene ists had an Aristotelean view of much of humanity, which had it that some men were natural slaves. The biologists who experiment with human embryos and mouse embryos with sovereign indifference, evidence the same view.

[RobbyS]

You ought to argue that Darwin’s principle stands despite his ignorance of genetics. Adhere to his authority in this matter did slow down acceptance of Mendel and other more advanced thinkers.

[allmendream]

What does the use of dog pelts or their scavenger nature have to do with anything?

Biologists who do experiments with human or mouse embryos are not working from the assumption that some humans are natural slaves, they are working from the assumption that all humanity might benefit from their research.

[allmendream]

How was Mendel's thinking “more advanced” than Darwin's?

Mendelian genetics agrees with Evolution through natural selection in that both posit that biological inheritance is done by passing along discrete units of inheritance.

Darwin didn't know about DNA or genetics, but he did know that traits are inherited (something humanity has observed from the beginning), and he assumed that they were passed along in a Mendelian (discrete)rather than a Lamarckian (amorphous)manner. Darwin and Mendel were both correct and Lamarck was wrong.

[RobbyS]

The Nazi inner circle despised religion. If you read Goebbels, one sees how he viewed Christianity. For propoganda purposes, they would use “spiritual” languages. This “public” religion resembled in form the national Protestant Church doctrine. But in fact the regime tolerated religious practice for purely pragmatic reasons: they were in power only six years before the war and they dared not suppress beliefs and practices long established in the nation if they were to maintain the nationality unity they needed to maintain the regime. However, they were quickly moving to suppress religious education, which is why there was mandatory enrollment of the youth in the Hitler organization, whose object was to instill Hitler worship in the youth.

[RobbyS]

Darwin was a gradualist not a Mendelian. He rejected catastrophe, following one school of the geologists.

[RobbyS]

What does the use of dog pelts or their scavenger nature have to do with anything?

We think of animals as organic machines,beingg radically different from us. which is why we treat them with indifference.

Biologists who do experiments with human or mouse embryos are not working from the assumption that some humans are natural slaves, they are working from the assumption that all humanity might benefit from their research.

I gather you assume that human embryos are not human beings. That is a useful assumption for biologists who want to use their living bodies for their experiments. I do not share that view. As to motive, the Nazi scientists were similarly convinced that all humanity would beenfit from their research.

[allmendream]

Darwin didn't know of Mendel's research so he could hardly be called a Mendelian. Moreover nothing in Mendelian genetics has anything to do with catastrophe or geology or gradualism; it has to do with the mechanism of inheritance in discrete units and darned if Darwin didn't posit that variations within species could be passed along to descendants in discrete units.

[allmendream]

I know my dog is an organic “machine”. I know he is different from us (although he does share a common ancestor) however this difference is not at all “radical” but one of degree, that is why we use dogs to test drugs, because they are NOT radically different than us. I hardly treat him (or other dogs) with indifference.

Compare that with the theological idea that dogs do not have a soul and you will find your “radical” difference.

Biologists acknowledge the common ancestry of all life. It is not Science that seeks to claim that a dog has no spiritual existence merely a physical one.

[tacticalogic]

As to motive, the Nazi scientists were similarly convinced that all humanity would beenfit from their research.

I think that's pretty much true of all scientists. What conclusion should we draw from that?

[allmendream]

“As to motive, the Nazi scientists were similarly convinced that all humanity would benefit from their research.” RobbyS

Nazi Scientist thought the Reich would benefit from their research, and one of the goals of the Reich was elimination of a majority of human life on the planet, all those who were not “Aryan” the “image of God” according to Nazi propaganda.